KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 720/2006

JUDGMENT DATED: 13.4.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

Sri.Thulasidas,                                             : APPELLANT

S/o Kunjunni,

Kollamparambil Veedu,

Vettackal.P.O.,

Cherthala.

 (By Adv.Aji K.Antony)               

                Vs.

P.C.Mathai,                                                 : RESPONDENT

Poriyam Velil veedu,

Poomakavu,

Pathirapally.P.O.,

Alappuzha.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

            The appellant is the 1^st opposite party in OP A.301/2001 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The  appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.60000/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint  and also  to pay a sum of  Rs.1000/- towards cost. 

          2. The case of the complainant is that he is a retired teacher and he deposited Rs.20,000/- each in the name of his wife, mother, son, daughter and himself on 20.10.95 at the Premier Trust.  The 1^st opposite party is the Secretary and the 2^nd opposite party is the President and the rest is members.  He deposited the amounts for 13 months at the rate of interest  12%.  Thereafter he withdrew an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the name of his mother and Rs.10,000/- from the  deposit of himself.  The complainant has surrendered the deposits receipts in the name of his mother and himself.  He is not getting interest from 1998 onwards.  He has sought for return of the amount deposited in the name of family members amounting to Rs.70,000/-  including 60,000/- deposit in the names of family members and Rs.10000/- in his name with interest from 1998 onwards.  According to him the 1^st opposite party was repeatedly promising to return the amount. 

3. The 1^st opposite  party  filed separate version  and the rest opposite parties filed a joint version.

4. According to the 1^st opposite party the other opposite parties were also the office bearers of the Trust.  According to him the other opposite parties have colluded with the complainant.  According to him he had kept  signed  blank deposit receipts in order to receive deposits in his absence. It is  so also contended that the complainant has no right to file complaint on behalf of the others who are not parties.  As per  the bye- law of the trust  the assets of the trust is only liable  for the debts.  The complaint is barred by limitation.

5. The opposite parties 2 to 7 have contended that Secretary alone is liable as registration and  license for the money lending and other related documents are in the name of the Secretary.  It is alleged that the  1^st opposite party misappropriated the funds of the trust and the deposited amounts and the pledged gold ornaments.  The same was checked by the committee members on 21.6.1997 and found to be true.  On 22.6.97 the 1^st opposite party  has executed the letter to the 2^nd opposite party President in which he has stated that his personal assets alone will be liable for the liabilities and that he  shall return the same with his own funds.  The 1^st opposite party was the custodian of all records.  They have also alleged that that  complaint is barred by limitation.

6. It is also noted that the complainant filed delay condonation petition stating that the complainant was demanding the amount    from the 1^st opposite party and that the complainant believed that the 1^st opposite party will pay the amount soon.

7. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony PW1, RW1; Exts. P1 to P3 and B1.

8. We find that Ext.B1  the letter allegedly executed by the 1^st opposite party undertaking liability with respect to the  pledged gold ornaments was proved by RW1, 4^th opposite party, one of the members of the executive committee.  PW1 has testified as to the fact that he deposited the amount in  the name of his family members. He has also produced Ext.P1 to P3 FD receipts in the name of his family members.

9. With respect to the contention  complaint is barred by limitation  the complainant has filed petition accompanied by the affidavit of the complainant seeking to condone the delay of  6 months. But there is no separate order with respect to the above petition.  The Forum has mentioned the same in the order. In view of the fact complainant has filed delay condonation petition  and that the same has been mentioned in the order  we find that the Forum has treated delay as condoned.  We find that no objection has been filed by the opposite party on the above application  also.  In the circumstances we find there is no merit in the contention that the complaint is barred by limitation.

10. The contention that the complainant has no locus standi,  we find, the complaint cannot be upheld  in view of the fact that it is the case of the complainant that it was he who deposited the amount in the name of his family members and has produced the FD receipts.  The same stands not disputed. In the circumstance the above contention  is liable  to be rejected.

11. The prime contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the other opposite parties also should have been  made liable and also that the  trust is not made a party. As to the involvement of the 1^st opposite party the version of the other opposite parties is that it was the 1^st opposite party who was managing  the affairs of the firm and that he has admitted the liability with respect to the pledged gold ornaments and that  the 1^st opposite party was managing the affairs by himself on the evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 statement.  The 1^st opposite party has  not mounted the  witness box.  The trust is only a registered firm at best. No documents of registration or bye-laws were produced.  In the circumstances we find there is no illegality in making 1^st opposite party liable .  In the circumstances we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called    for.  The order of the Forum is confirmed.

Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum.

                   JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

ps